No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.
So? That’s nowhere near the same thing as what you’re suggesting “AI can just take DNA and make the same person”. Look up what twins actually are. They aren’t just DNA injected into some random person.
I just re-read their post and yes you’re right, in which case I disagree with them. “Perfect” is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect
But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point.
No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.
But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical
So? That’s nowhere near the same thing as what you’re suggesting “AI can just take DNA and make the same person”. Look up what twins actually are. They aren’t just DNA injected into some random person.
They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.
I just re-read their post and yes you’re right, in which case I disagree with them. “Perfect” is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect
Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details
[deleted]